Since you want to debate, I can refute you effectively:
1. Technical analysis is essentially superstition. Its belief stems from the assumption that historically repeating price patterns will recur, leading to inferences based on this. However, the reality is that a fully competitive market is unpredictable.
Therefore, I'm not being hypocritical. Analysts who try to predict prices by drawing a few messy charts are no different from fortune tellers…
This is why I always avoid any definitive market analysis conclusions and always consider all possible reasons. I firmly believe the future is unpredictable, and the right path is to develop strategies, not make predictions.
2. Regarding your mentioned real-world prediction records, I don't have the time to verify them. Since you want to prove your ability to accurately predict price behavior, you can simply tell me the results you obtained through astrology or other predictive methods.
For example, what will be the daily closing price of BTC in the next 3 days? The time is based on the daily closing price at 8 AM UTC+8. You also mentioned that your ETH prediction was accurate to within $2. Based on the base effect, the prediction error for BTC should theoretically be less than $67. Do you have the confidence to successfully predict that? 3. Regarding the arguments you cited, they are precisely the kind of self-inflicted wound. The "Martian effect" attributed to Michel Gauquelin, the former director of the French National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies, is a classic example of statistical sample selection gone wrong. If you analyze it using scientific methods, or simply ask AI if the "Martian effect" is real, you'll see it's a prime example of flawed statistical sample selection. His sample consisted of top athletes, not the average population. How absurd is this statistical method?
Back when the Chinese internet was dominated by BAT (Baidu, Alibaba, Tencent) 7-8 years ago, I only needed to conduct a statistical analysis of the relationship between the surnames of the founders of the top three internet companies and their company's market capitalization to easily arrive at the ridiculous conclusion: people with the surname Ma are naturally suited for internet entrepreneurship…
This is similar to your example, only slightly extreme. To put it more reasonably, consider selecting the world's top 500 richest people and trying to summarize their small habits, such as whether they prefer sweet or salty foods. These small details, due to the specific nature of the sample group, will inevitably not be evenly distributed. But would you really believe that people who prefer sweet foods are more likely to become top billionaires?
Finally: You said that traders should respect high-dimensional parameters… Honestly, the word "parameter" isn't used like that, and "dimensionality" isn't for discussing metaphysics… Parameters are always variables based on a fixed equation. Like adjusting the parameters of an indicator, the amount you adjust will shift the indicator's calculation result by that amount. But can you provide specific practical guidance for the metaphysical (high-dimensional) parameters you're talking about?
Suppose you have bad luck today, then what?
What exactly should you do, to what extent, what will the impact be, and how much will the impact change?
These are all unknowable… rather, vague…
So your attempt to use "high dimension" to mask "fuzziness" is precisely the common trick of those with feudal superstitions… They provide emotional value with vague but seemingly certain conclusions. If they guess correctly, they use the certainty as a basis for self-verification; if they guess wrong, they use the vague description to justify themselves.
The problem with metaphysics lies in its inability to be falsified; this ambiguous yet certain logic satisfies humanity's sense of security in the face of the unknown… Science, on the other hand, is science precisely because all our conclusions, from the moment they are born, await falsification, and we eagerly anticipate it…
I really enjoyed this debate! 👍
